Journal of International Scientific Publications

JOURNAL OF

International Scientific Publications: Ecology

Safety, Volume 7, Part

Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journals

Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net

Published by Info Invest Ltd www.sciencebg.net ISSN 1313-2563, 2013, Bulgaria (EU)

Journal of International Scientific Publications: Ecology


ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net Editor in Chief Ioannis Takos, Greece Co-Editor in Chief Kosta Genev, Bulgaria Cengiz Kurtulus, Turkey Executive Secretary Marina Sizemskaya, Russia Editorial Board Members Branko Marinkovi Serbia Dimiter Syrakov, Bulgaria Dimitrios Bakaloudis, Greece Daniel Bucur, Romania Galatsidas Spyridon, Greece Hamid Abbasdokht, Iran Ijaz Noorka, Pakistan Ljubica Komazec, Serbia Juying Jiao, China Jovan Crnobarac, Serbia Lev Ruzer, USA Muhammad Afzal, Pakistan Meenu Vikram, USA Nadezhda Khristoforova, Russia Oana Zamfirescu, Romania Oleg Romanovskii, Russia Theodora Merou, Greece Tatiana Tolstikova, Russia Vladimir Solodukhin, Kazakhstan

2

Published by Info Invest, Bulgaria, www.sciencebg.net



ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE, A PREREQUISITE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: CASE STUDY OF THE NATIONAL PARKS OF EVROS, GREECE V. Andrea, S., Tampakis, G., Tsantopoulos and K., Soutsas Dept of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources Democritus University of Thrace, Pantazidou 193, 68200 Orestiada, Greece

Abstract The establishment and improvement of infrastructure can result in increasing the efficiency of economic activities in the countryside. In addition, it is an important factor for sustainable tourism around National Parks. Therefore, the visitors’ assessment of the local facilities and services can lead us to very useful conclusions about the quality of the experience they receive, and also define the future of the area. The present study was conducted at the National Parks of Evros Prefecture, namely Dadia and the Evros Delta, where the visitors stated their views about the existing infrastructure. A structured questionnaire was used and the cluster sampling method was applied in both cases.The statistical package SPSS was used for the data analysis The results of the study indicate that visitors are quite satisfied with their experience at the National Parks, although the public transport and recreation facilities to proven be insufficient in both cases. Key words: Tourism infrastructure, National Parks, sustainable development, Evros, problems and improvement of infrastructure 1. INTRODUCTION National Parks offer various types of recreation and sightseeing activities and are a catalyst in attracting large numbers of visitors (Boyd and Hall 2005; Saarinen, 2001). According to RigallTorrent and Fluvia (2007, 2011), cultural legacy, public safety, and public infrastructure are some of the social benefits that arise through sustainable tourism development. Intrinsically, tourism development is closely affiliated with environmental (Gerberich 2005; Zeppel 2006), economic (Lemelin & Bennett 2010), social, cultural, political and psychological benefits (Scheyvens, 2002; Zeppel 2006; Butler & Hinch 2007) which are delivered to gateway communities. For this reason, the development and improvement of infrastructure is an essential pre-requisite, in order to address the competition imposed by other equally famous destinations with high visitor numbers (Sheykhi 2009). The establishment and improvement of infrastructure is one of the most important factors that can contribute to local and regional development. The implementation of development plans and infrastructure improvements can result in reducing production costs and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of economic activities in a rural environment (Shen et al 2012). However, as Elliot (1997) notes, governmental plans and actions are the ones that are able to provide the basic infrastructure for rural development. Moreover, as Reihanian et al. (2012) complement, infrastructure deficiencies are connected with a lack of interest on the part of the local government. It should also be noted that visitors’ views on the local facilities, services and infrastructure provide crucial information about the quality of the experience they receive. The latter leads us to the conclusion, that information data about visitors can contribute to the effective management of National Parks and Protected Areas (Lindberg & Veisten 2012).

108




ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net Any plans for the management of a protected area should at first focus on creating a link between ecotourism and the relevant work-related and economic benefits that arise for the local population, in order to ensure both the ecological and economic viability of the region (Skanavis and Giannoulis 2010). At a later stage, the local authorities should focus on the creation or improvement of the relevant infrastructure, such as parking areas, and on providing tourist attractions, e.g. by enhancing archaeological sites and promoting local cultural events. Other projects which promote tourism can also play an important role, such as the setting up of Internet websites by the prefectural authorities, and the establishment of portals for e-trade (Getz 1986; Haywood 1988; Long & Nuckolls 1994; Walle 1996; Wynne et al 2001). 1.1 Sustainable development via tourism in National Parks In regions around National Parks, prohibitions exist which affect certain economic activities, such as fishing, stock breeding and agriculture, a fact which impacts on the living conditions of the local population (Tsachalidis & Tsantopoulos 2000; Lemelin & Mclntyre 2011). However, the development of sustainable tourism offers an alternative solution in such cases (Walpole & Goodwin 2001; Lai & Nepal 2006) and provides opportunities for rural development (Good, 2000) and for the protection of nature (Ban Picart & Vincent 2008). According to Carr (2007), a conservation ethic must be created within the gateway communities in order for them to preserve tourist attractions, such as traditional sites, landscapes and resources. Tourism offers the basic framework that can deliver benefits to the gateway communities and consequently create a strong commitment within these communities for the preservation of the areas in question. Increased employment, financial gains, infrastructure creation, cultural revitalization and environmental protection are the most important positive impacts of tourism development (Zeppel 2006; Butler & Hinch 2007; Benett et al 2012). More specifically, the local community can benefit from the creation of employment opportunities in transport, in public works for infrastructure improvement, such as the construction and maintenance of road networks, and through staff requirements at hotel facilities, catering areas and recreation facilities, or at the National Parks themselves, and in any service provision sector, which is a result of tourism development. Moreover, a source of additional finance is thus created for the financing of National Parks, through the various activities organized on-site (Buultjens et al 2004) and from visitation fees (Wellings 2007). Thus, high-quality services and infrastructure improvements for visitors are some of the most important policy planning measures for the management of National Parks. Aiming to achieve this goal, an enhanced visitors’ experience can maximize the stakeholders’ benefits, regarding the longterm environmental, social and cultural integrity of protected areas (Kimbu & Ngoasong 2012). According to Andrea et al. (2011), the participation of the local population in decision-making processes and having access to information about visitors’ views and attitudes are the key tools to achieve effective management (Andrea et al 2012a). In Greece, the search for a holiday destination which offers a range of nature-based activities and excursions has been a priority for many tourists in recent years. The growth of rural tourism (ecotourism or agro-tourism in general) is already a fact in Northern Europe. In the Mediterranean basin, the dominant trend of mass tourism has caused a delay as regards the development of new alternative types of vacation. Nevertheless, visitor demand for new forms of tourism has urged all countries to focus on a variety of novel activities. The development of agro-tourism in Greece began thanks to the encouragement of the EU and the projects financed by the LEADER programme. Since then, the interest of investors has continued undiminished and today its ultimate objective is to enhance Greek rural areas and provide innovative services and a range of activities to visitors searching for a different holiday experience (Hellenic Ministry of Rural Development & Food).

109




ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net 1.2

Incorporating visitors’ views in order to preserve protected areas

Visitors’ views, about a protected area which has been chosen as a destination, provide important information and constitute useful data for the effective management of protected areas as tourist destinations (Watson et al 2000; Eagles 2002; Hendee & Dawson 2002; Wardell & Moore 2004). The assessment of the local infrastructure leads to very useful conclusions about the quality of the experience the visitors receive (Cessford & Muhar 2003), as it defines the future of the area. Conclusions regarding the visitors’ views can be used for the effective management of protected areas and services, for infrastructure improvement and to enhance administrative operations (Andrea et al 2012a). In addition, according to Rolston (2002), the natural beauty of a specific area is closely affiliated with a sense of duty, which affects the visitors’ psychology, to preserve the area in question. Thereby, visitors’ attitudes play a crucial role regarding management plans both for protection and sustainable development purposes. At present, managers are facing a great challenge in the effort to balance ecological preservation with recreational use (Cole & Daniel 2003). As Watson et al. (2000) underline, the development and implementation of such strategic plans should focus on research regarding visitor attributes, e.g. their needs, preferences and time and space distribution in a specific area (Eagles 2002; Hendee & Dawson 2002). In cases where there are several protected areas in close proximity, it is possible to promote a developmental perspective based on their interaction and attractiveness to tourists. In such cases, the main goal should be the development of all the protected areas in question, in a way that reinforces the benefits of the connection between them. It is also important for a cooperation framework to be formed amongst the various stakeholder groups (Andrea et al 2012b). The work of the various interest groups, who participate in the decision-making processes for Protected Areas, should focus on supporting and guiding the businesses involved in tourism, with the aim of developing and improving the local tourism infrastructure (Andrea et al 2012a). 2. STUDY AREA The research area includes the National Park of Dadia – Lefkimi – Soufli and the National Park of the Evros Delta. Two management bodies have been established for both National Parks respectively, while the research areas administratively belong to the Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. The National Park of Dadia is one of the most important habitats in Europe, and has been officially characterised through JMD 35633 OGG D'911/13-10-2006, as the “National Park of Dadia – Lefkimi – Soufli Forests”. It is one of the country’s areas managed in the most integrated manner. The forest of Dadia is the only habitat in Greece that is a breeding ground for the Black Vulture (Aegypius monachus) (Vlachos et al 1999; Skartsi 2002), which is a rare bird of prey, that is globally in danger of extinction (Collar et al 1994; Poirazidis 2004). In addition, the National Park of Dadia is included in the Greek catalogue NATURA 2000. The total size of the area included in the NATURA 2000 network is 43,000 hectares, which, according to the Joint Ministerial Decision of 1980, encompass two strictly protected areas (7,290 hectares). The National Park of Evros Delta is an ecosystemof great international value, located in the southeastern part of Evros Prefecture. Evros River is the second longest river in Eastern Europe and the longest in the Balkans, creating a natural border between Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey. The Evros Delta Wetlands are included in the Ramsar Convention list, due to the important species that take shelter there. Moreover, part of the Delta has been characterised as a Special Protection Area (SPA) and has also been recommended as a Site of Community Interest (SCI) in the Natura 2000 Network. The total size of the area is 500,000 hectares, 100,000 of which belong to Turkey. The National Park

110




ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net of the Evros Delta is home to rare species of flora and fauna. It is also an area of immense interest regarding ornithological issues, as it is the habitat of many endangered species of birds which face a very high risk of extinction (Evros Delta). In the region of Evros Prefecture, where the two Parks are located, alternative forms of tourism have been developed which involve related activities and cover a broad range of visitor preferences. They include therapeutic tourism in two parts of the Prefecture, namely at the thermal springs of Traianoupolis and Samothrace, climbing tourism in Samothrace, religious tourism in Feres, Didymoteicho and Dadia, ecotourism at the Evros Delta and Dadia Forest, congress tourism in Alexandroupoli, hiking and nature trail tourism at Dadia forest, school tourism at the Environmental Education Centre in Soufli, agro-tourism in the broader Evros area, hunting tourism, adventure tourism with activities such as canoeing on Tychero Lake, cycling along the Makri-MesimvriaMaroneia waterfront route, as well as cycle rides at the Evros Delta and at the Ecotourism Centre in Dadia; finally, boat trips are also organized along Evros river to the Evros Delta, as well as birdwatching at Dadia Forest (Evros Prefecture). 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Two independent studies were conducted within the framework of this research. The first involved the visitors of Dadia National Forest and the second was addressed at the visitors of Evros Delta National Park. The research was conducted through face-to-face interviews. The lack of and inability to create a framework for the visitors before beginning the sampling, led us to choose the cluster sampling method (Damianou 1999; Siardos 1999; Kalamatianou 2000; Matis 2001). In cluster sampling, only one list of groups-clusters is required, along with the data from the selected clusters (Benos 1991; Farmakis 1992; Tryfos 1996; Charisis & Kiochos 1997; Filias et al 2000). The division of the population into clusters leads to reduced sampling costs (Farmakis 1992). The selected clusters were the weekends of the year during which the research was conducted (Matsiori 2001), which was the year 2010. In order to implement this method, the population is divided into N clusters (52 weekends), of which we take a random sample of n clusters. From these, we collect observations coming from all units of the selected clusters. The estimation of the population proportion and the standard error s p are given by the cluster sampling formulae. Prior to the final sampling, pre-sampling was carried out on five selected clusters. The pre-sampling data was used to calculate the size of the final sample (no of clusters), with d = 0.07 for probability (1- ) = 95% (therefore, a corresponding value z /2 = z0.025 = 1.96). The maximum sample size was calculated as being 16 clusters (weekends) for visitors to Dadia. In this way, the most frequently changing variable is estimated to the desired accuracy, while the others are estimated with a greater accuracy than initially defined (Matis 2001). n both studies, all the questions which concern the assessment of tourism infrastructure constitute a polythematic variable, related to the reliability analysis. More specifically, Cr nbach’s reliability coefficient is used to identify the internal reliability of a questionnaire (Frangos 2004), i.e. if the data has the tendency to measure the same thing (Howitt & Gramer 2003). An coefficient that is equal to or higher than 0.70 is considered satisfactory (Howitt & Gramer 2003); when it is higher than 0.80 it is considered very satisfactory, but very often, in practice, lower reliability coefficients are accepted, with values up to 0.60 (Siardos 1999). Any test must be reliable in order to be useful. However, reliability does not suffice, it should also be valid, and this is checked through factor analysis (Siardos 1999). Factor analysis is a statistical method which aims to identify the existence of factors which are common within a group of variables (Sharma 1996). Moreover, the former analysis attempts to interpret structure rather than variability (Djoufras & Karlis 2001). The selection of the number of factors is a dynamic process, which presupposes the

111




ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net evaluation of the model in a repeating fashion. More specifically, we can use Kaiser’s Rule, the variance percentage that can be explained or the screen plot (Karlis 2005). 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The views of Dadia visitors regarding tourism infrastructure in the broader region of Evros are presented in Table 1. In particular, we observe that the visitors consider the hotel facilities satisfactory (19.1% regard them as very good, while 34.5% as good); their evaluation of the catering areas is also quite similar (14.4% regard them as very good, while 37.5% as good). Their views are more positive regarding the National Parks, the road network and the beaches, since over half the respondents regard them as good or very good. On the other hand, they assess the public transport as marginally satisfactory (30.7% regard it as good, while 16.4% as average) and the recreation facilities also (30.2% regard them as good, while 17.4% as average), which means that in the visitors’ opinion they need to be improved. Similarly, the views of visitors to the Evros Delta concerning tourism infrastructure in the broader Evros region are shown in Table 2. The visitors’ views are relatively positive concerning the hotel facilities (14.6% very good, 37% good), catering areas (10.1% very good, 43.6% good), the road network (20.9% very good, 32.5% good) and the beaches (16.4% very good, 30.5% good), since over half of them consider the above mentioned infrastructure to be good or very good. The visitors appear marginally satisfied with the public transport (25.9% regard it as good, while 18.1% as average) and the recreation facilities (31.7% regard them as good, while 20.4% as average). Finally, they seem to be more satisfied with the National Parks, as approximately six out of ten grade them as being good or very good (25.4% very good, 36% good).

Very good

Good

Average

Bad

Infrastructure

Very bad

No answer

p%

sp

p%

sp

p%

sp

p%

sp

p %

sp

p %

sp

Road network

20.9

0.0211

32.5

0.0246

17.4

0.0118

6.0

0.0119

2.0

0.0060

21.2

0.0292

Public transport

7.8

0.0137

25.9

0.0253

18.1

0.0161

5.8

0.0123

1.5

0.0060

40.8

0.0273

Hotel facilities

14.6

0.0209

37.0

0.0341

17.9

0.0210

1.8

0.0060

0.3

0.0021

28.5

0.0314

Catering areas

10.0

0.0127

43.6

0.0346

15.1

0.0144

2.0

0.0041

1.8

0.0041

27.5

0.0331

Recreation facilities

7..3

0.0131

31.7

0.0303

20.4

0.0168

4..3

0.0095

1.0

0.0036

35.3

0.0234

National Parks

25.4

0.0234

36.0

0.0177

10.1

0.0149

1.8

0.0040

0.3

0.0021

26.4

0.0330

Beaches

16.4

0.0205

30.5

0.0275

18.9

0.0184

3.0

0.0080

1.0

0.0036

30.2

0.0348

Table 1. The views of Dadia visitors on the local tourism infrastructure

112




ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net Very good Infrastructure

Good

Average

Bad

Very bad

No answer

p%

sp

p%

sp

p%

sp

p%

sp

p %

sp

p%

sp

Road network

21.4

0.0166

34.3

0.0173

15.1

0.0155

7.1

0.0099

3.8

0.0105

18.4

0.0133

Public transport

11.8

0.0166

30.7

0.0171

16.4

0.0238

1.5

0.0050

3.8

0.0120

35.8

0.0189

Hotel facilities

19.1

0.0177

34.5

0.242

13.4

0.0113

2.0

0.0052

31.0

0.0195

Catering areas

14.4

0.0162

37.5

0.0258

11.6

0.0153

1.8

0.0061

0.3

0.0021

34.5

0.0203


9.8

0.0119

30.2

0.0191

17.4

0.0130

2.3

0.0064

0.5

0.0028

39.8

0.0234

National Parks

25.4

0.0196

32.7

0.0138

11.8

0.0148

2.5

0.0063

27.5

0.0219

Beaches

11.8

0.0172

32.2

0.0169

19.6

0.0187

2.5

0.0059

33.5

0.0208

0.3

0.0021

Table 2. The views of Delta visitors on the local tourism infrastructure After completing all the necessary checks, we used reliability analysis with the above questions. The value of the reliability coefficient is 0.850 for the data pertaining to the Dadia visitors and 0.861 for the data pertaining to the visitors of the Evros Delta. This is a strong indication of the fact that the degrees of scale are logically consistent, i.e. the data from the two studies has the tendency to measure the same thing. In fact, this is also supported by the significantly high partial alpha reliability coefficients after the deletion of any infrastructure type, since no increase of the reliability coefficient is observed even in that case. Also, before proceeding with the application of factor analysis, we conducted all necessary checks. The value of the Keiser-Meyer-Olkin indicator is 0.830 and 0.822, for the visitors to Dadia and the Delta respectively. It is suggested that the KMO indicator should be higher than 0.80 but values higher than 0.60 are also acceptable (Sharma 1996). Also, Bartlett’s test of sphericity rejects the null hypothesis that the correlation table is unitary and that the partial correlation coefficients are low. Furthermore, the fact that the measures of sampling adequacy (MSA) have high to very high values, supports the view that the factor analysis model is acceptable. After the application of factor analysis and in order to examine the existence of common factors in the infrastructure as a whole, two factors were extracted from both studies (eigenvalue higher than 1). Table 3 provides the loadings, which are the partial correlation coefficients of the seven variables with each of the two factors that have emerged from the analysis. The higher the loading of a variable to a factor, the more this factor is responsible for the total variance of values in the variable under study. The variables which “belong” to each factor are those for which the loading (columns 1 and 2) is higher than 0.5 for that factor (Frangos 2004). For the Dadia visitors, the first factor includes the following variables: beaches, road network and public transport system, and can be termed “accessibility of the destination”. The second factor includes the variables: hotel facilities, catering areas, recreation facilities and National Parks, and can be termed “recreation at the destination”. It is obvious that Dadia visitors make a distinction, regarding the quality of their experience, between the accessibility of the beaches, which is a characteristic of mass tourism, and the recreation opportunities when visiting the National Parks, which seem to be the motivation for their journey. It should also be noted that Dadia area is located far from the seaside, which means that the transportation system is a prerequisite in order to reach any beaches.

113




ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net Factor loadings Variable

After rotation

After rotation

(Dadia)

(Delta)

1

2

1

2

Road network

0.203

0.899

0.874

0.222

Public transport

0.347

0.811

0.892

0.147

Hotel facilities

0.720

0.375

0.617

0.438

Catering areas

0.856

0.179

0.379

0.705


0.801

0.295

0.270

0.852

National parks

0.614

0.338

0.525

0.475

Beaches

0.418

0.543

0.108

0.805

Table 3. Table with factor loadings after rotation For Delta visitors there is a differentiation in the two factors. The first one includes the following variables: road network, public transport system, hotel facilities and National Parks, and can be termed “recreation infrastructure”. The second factor includes the variables: catering areas, recreation facilities and beaches and can be termed “mass tourism infrastructure”. Delta visitors relate the term accessibility to the National Parks, potentially due to the fact that in order to reach the Delta they have to get an entry permit from the Management Body (MB), and the trip along the river requires the presence of a specialist eco-guide from the MB. The role of tour-guides is an important one, according to Weiler & Ham (2001), since they can encourage pro-environmental behaviour and therefore have a significant impact on the visitors’ experience. Moreover, the Delta is located at close proximity to the coast (Thracian Sea). Thus, managers can exploit this advantage and use the beaches, which are a feature of mass tourism, in order to promote sustainable tourism at the National Park of the Evros Delta. In a relevant study, conducted in the same region addressing local people of both areas, the residents’ opinion is that the infrastructure, which can be directly affected by the local community through its activities, such as hotel facilities, catering areas, recreation facilities, National Parks and beaches, is acceptable, even though there is room for improvement. On the other hand, the road network and public transport system, which are factors dependent on the actions and decisions of the regional authorities and government, are regarded as insufficient (Andrea et al 2012a). As Tampakis et al. (2012) note, local people are those who are better aware of the problems of their region than any other party, since they have to deal with them on a daily basis. This is why their judgment of the quality of the infrastructure is stricter. 4. CONCLUSIONS National Parks and protected areas can serve as a useful tool for the economic development of adjacent communities (Good 2000; Walpole & Goodwin 2001; Lai & Nepal 2006; Mayer et al 2010). This also seems to be the case for both National Parks of Evros Prefecture, as most of the visitors to Dadia and the Evros Delta view the National Parks under a positive light. In addition, most of the visitors have a good opinion of the local beaches too, a characteristic of mass tourism. According to

114




ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net Reihanian et al. (2012), in order to pursue effective management in protected areas, it is useful to combine a form of mass tourism, such as beach tourism, with ecotourism, especially when the relevant areas favour such a combination. Nevertheless, a significant percentage of the respondents consider the public transport and recreation facilities to be insufficient in both cases. This observation leads to the conclusion that in order to enhance the quality of the visitors’ experience, improvements to the infrastructure are required. Any strategic plans focused on this objective, should also involve local entrepreneurs providing goods and services affiliated with tourism, as well as the regional and central authorities who are responsible for improving the above-mentioned infrastructure. The visitors’ views, concerning the goods and services provided in such areas, can constitute a source of information for decision-makers and managers, and ensure that any effective management plans will incorporate essential improvements related to the areas’ recreational and tourism-related functions (Juutinen et al 2011). Another important observation is that the accessibility of a National Park or recreation area in general is the main parameter which influences visitors, when choosing a specific type of excursion. Furthermore, the public transport available and the road network are elements that define the quality of the journey, while the available options and ease of accessibility to a specific area determine what means of transport will be used. The latter along with the road network are elements that determine the quality of any trip (Andrea et al 2011). To conclude, the traveler’s experience appears to be divided into two elements, the first concerning accessibility and the second concerning recreation. For visitors to Dadia, there is a connection between recreation and National Parks, which means that the incentive for their trip is the visit to the National Park itself. However, there is a differentiation in the way visitors to the Delta classify National Parks, since they seem to associate National Parks with the element of accessibility. This can be explained by the fact that visitors to the Delta have to take part in a scheduled trip along the river, which must be supervised by the MB. The way in which visitors rate their satisfaction is a complex process influenced by internal and external factors. Nevertheless, approaches which aim at an understanding of the destination and service attributes that enhance tourist satisfaction can provide useful data for an effective re-planning of the whole experience (Coghlan 2012). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program: Heracleitus II. Investing in the knowledge society through the European Social Fund. REFERENCES Andrea V., Tampakis, S. & Tsantopoulos, G. 2011. ‘Visitor criteria for selecting a National Park destination’, Policies of Environmental Protection, Themes in Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, vol. 3. Stilianos A. Tampakis, Evangelos I. Manolas (Editors). Orestiada: Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of Thrace. Andrea V., Tampakis S., Skanavis C. & Tsantopoulos G. 2012a. Assessing tourism infrastructure in the protected areas of Dadia and the Evros Delta: The views of the local population. Proceedings of the International Conference “Protection and Restoration of the Environment XI”, 3-6 July 2012, Thessaloniki, pp. 1954-1962.

115




ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net ndrea V., Tampakis S., Tsantopoulos G. & Skanavis C. 2012b. Interaction and development prospects for Protected Areas: Comparative study of visitors’ views on Dadia and the Evros Delta. Proceedings of 5th Panhellenic Conference “Environmental Policy & Management”, 25-27 May 2012, Mytilene. http://www3.aegean.gr/environment/eeppd/CONF2012.htm Ban, N., Picard, C. & Vincent, N. 2008. Moving toward spatial solutions in marine conservation with indigenous communities. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 32. http:/ www.ecologyandsociety.org.vol13/iss1/art32/ Online URL. Benos, . 1991. Sampling Methods and Techniques, Stamoulis publications. Bennett, N. Lemelin, R.H., Koester, R. & Budke, I. 2012. The capital assets for appraising and building capacity for tourism development in aboriginal protected area gateway communities. Tourism Management, vol. 33, issue 4, pp. 752-766. Boyd S. & Hall, C.M. 2005. ‘Nature-based tourism in peripheral areas: making peripheral destinations competitive’ In: Hall, C.M., Boyd, S. (Eds.), Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Development or Disaster? Channel View Publications, Clevedon. Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (Eds.) 2007. Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications (2nd ed.). London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Buultjens J., Ratnayake, I., Gnanapala, A. & Aslam, M. 2004. Tourism and its implications for management in Ruhuna National Park (Yala), Sri Lanka. Tourism Management, vol. 26, pp. 733-742. Carr, A. 2007. Negotiating the obstacles: owner/operator perspectives on ‘nature’ tourism in New Zealand. In J. Higham (Ed.), Critical issues in tourism: Understanding a complex tourism phenomenon (pp. 406-427). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Cessford, G. & Muhar, A. 2003. Monitoring options for visitor numbers in national parks and natural areas. Journal of Nature and Conservation, vol. 11, pp. 240-250. Charisis, . & Kiochos, P. 1997. Sampling theory and applications. Interbooks publications. Athens. Coghlan, A. 2012. Facilitating reef tourism management through an innovative importanceperformance analysis method. Tourism Management, vol. 33, Issue 4, pp. 767-775. Cole, N.D. & Daniel, T.C. 2003. The Science of visitor management in parks and protected areas: from verbal reports to simulation models. Journal for Nature Conservation, vol. 11, pp. 269-277. Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J. & Stattersfield, A.J. 1994. Birds to Watch 2: The World List of Threatened Birds, BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 4). Damianou C.C. 1999. ‘Sampling Methodology: Techniques and Applications’, 3rd Printing, Athens: Ethra. Djoufras I. & Karlis, D. 2001. ‘Elements of Multivariate Data Analysis’, Notes on course: “Data Analysis I”. Department of Business Administration, University of the Aegean (Chios). Eagles, P.F.J. 2002. Tourism use measurement and reporting in parks and protected areas. Parks, vol. 12, pp. 3-10 Elliott, J. 1997. Tourism: Politics and public sector management. London: Routledge. Farmakis, . 1992. Introduction to Sampling, K. Christodoulidis publications, Thessaloniki. Filias, V., Pappas, P., Antonopoulou, ., Zarnari, ., Magganara, . Meimaris, ., Nikolakopoulos, I., Papachristou, . Perantzaki, ., Sampson, . & Psychogios . 2000. Introduction to Social Research Methodology and Techniques, Gutenberg Social Library, Athens.

116




ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net Frangos C.K. 2004. ‘Methodology of Market Research and Data Analysis with the use of the Statistical Package SPSS for Windows’, Athens: Interbooks Publications. Gerberich, V.L. 2005. An evaluation of sustainable American Indian tourism. In C. Ryan, and M. Aicken (Eds.), Indigenous tourism: The commodification and management of culture (pp. 75-86). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Getz D. 1986. Models in tourism planning. Towards integration of theory and practice. Tourism Management, vol. 7, issue 1, pp. 21-32. Good, J. 2000. Benefits of parks and protected areas. Economic framework project (report 251-e). Amherst Island, ON: The Outspan Group and Canadian Parks Council. Haywood K.M. 1988. Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism Management, vol. 9, issue 2, pp. 105-118. Hendee, J.C. & Dawson, C.P. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values, 3rd edition, Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Colorado. Juutinen, A., Mitani, Y., Mäntymaa, E., Shoji, Y., Siikamäki, P. &Svento, R. 2011. Combining ecological and recreational aspect in national park management, A choice experiment application. Ecological Economics, vol. 70, pp. 1231-1239. Howitt, D. & Gramer, D. 2003. ‘Statistics with the SPSS 11 for Windows’, Athens: Kleidarithmos Publications. Kalamatianou, A.G. 2000. ‘Social Statistics, Methods of One-dimensional Analysis’, Athens, To Oikonomiko. Karlis, D. 2005. Multivariate statistical analysis, Stamoulis, Athens. Kimbu, A.N. & Ngoasong, M.Z. 2012. Centralised decentralisation of tourism development: a network perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 40, pp. 235-259. Lai, P.H. &Nepal, S.K. 2006. Local perspectives of ecotourism development in Tawushan Nature Reserve, Taiwan. Tourism Management, vol. 27, pp. 1117-1129. Lemelin, R.H. & Bennett, N. 2010. The proposed Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage Site: management and protection of indigenous World Heritage Sites in a Canadian context. Loisir / Leisure, vol. 34, issue 2, pp. 169-187. Lemelin, R.H. & McIntyre, N. 2011. Resiliency and tourism in Ontario’s Far North: the social ecological system of the Weenusk First Nation at Peawanuck. In P. Maher, E. Stewart, & M. Lück (Eds.), Polar tourism: Human, environmental and governance dimensions (pp. 206-220). Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Lindberg, K. & Veisten, K. 2012. Local and non - local preferences for nature tourism facility development. Tourism Management Perspectives, vol.4, pp. 215-222. Long, P. & Nuckolls, J. 1994. Organizing resources for rural tourism development: The importance of leadership, planning and technical assistance. Tourism Recreation Research, vol.19, pp. 19-34. Matis, K.G. 2001. ‘Forest Sampling’, Democritus University of Thrace (Xanthi). Matsiori, S. 2001. Valuation of natural forest resources in the greater region of the university forest in Pertouli, PhD thesis, Dept of Forestry and the Natural Environment, AUTh. Thessaloniki. Mayer, M., Müller, M., Woltering, M., Arnegger, J. & Job, H. 2010. The economic impact of six German national parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 97, issue, 2, pp. 73-82.

117




ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net Poirazidis, K. Goutner, V., Skartsi, T. & Stamou, G. 2004. Modelling nesting habitat as a conservation tool for the Eurasian black vulture (Aegypius monachus) in Dadia Nature Reserve, NE Greece. Biological Conservation, vol. 118, issue 2, pp. 235-248. Reihanian, A., Mahmood, N.Z.B., Kahrom, E. & Hin, T.W. 2012. Sustainable tourism development strategy by SWOT analysis: Boujagh National Park, Iran. Tourism Management Perspectives, vol. 4, pp. 223-228. Rigall-I-Torrent, R., & Fluvia, M. 2007. Public goods in tourism municipalities: Formal analysis, empirical evidence and implications for sustainable development. Tourism Economics, vol. 13, issue 3, pp. 361–378. Rigall-I-Torrent, R., & Fluvia, M. 2011. Managing tourism products and destinations embedding public goods components: A hedonic approach. Tourism Management, vol. 32, pp. 244–255. Rolston H. 2002. From beauty to duty: aesthetics of nature and environmental ethics. In: Berleant, A. (Ed.), Environment and the Arts: Perspectives on Environmental Aesthetics. Ashgate, Aldershot and Burlington, pp. 127–142. Saarinen, J. 2001. ‘The transformation of a tourist destination - theory and case studies on the production of local geographies in tourism in Finnish Lapland’, Nordia Geographic Publications, pp. 30. Sharma, S. 1996. ‘Applied Multivariate Techniques’, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Shen, L., S. Jiang & Yuan, H. 2012. Critical indicators for assessing the contribution of infrastructure projects to coordinated urban-rural development in China. Habitat International, vol. 36, pp. 237-246. Sheykhi, M.T. 2009. Domestic Tourism in Iran. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 109-123. Scheyvens, R. 2002. Tourism for development: Empowering communities. Harlow: Prentice Hall Siardos, G. . 1999. ‘Multivariate Statistical Analysis Methods. Part I: Exploring the Relations between Variables’, Thessaloniki: Zitis Publications. Skanavis, C. & Giannoulis, C. 2010. Improving Quality of Ecotourism Through Advancing Education & Training of Greek Eco-tour Guides: The Role of Training in Environmental Interpretation. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, vol. 5, no 2, pp. 49-68. Skartsi, T. 2002. Annual Technical Report Population Estimation and Breeding Success of the Black Vulture in 2002, Monitoring Plan of Dadia Forest 2002, WWF-Greece, Athens. Tampakis, S., Manolas, E. & Tampakis, V. 2012. Assessing Tourist Infrastructure in the Island of Skiathos: The Views of Locals and Visitors. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, vol. 7, no 1, pp. 175-191. Tryfos, P. 1996. Sampling Methods for Applied Research: Text and Cases, eds., John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Canada. Tsachalidis, E. & Tsantopoulos, G. 2000. ‘Wetland management at the artificial lake of Kerkini, Serres: Individual characteristics and attitudes, trends and desires of people living close to wetland areas’, Proc. Int. Conf. 9th Panhellenic Forestry Conference, Kozani, Greece, 17-20 October 2000, pp. 364-371. Walle, A.H. 1996. Tourism and the Internet: opportunities for direct marketing. Journal of Travel Research, vol 35, issue 1, pp. 72-77.

118




ISSN 1313-2563, Published at: http://www.scientific-publications.net Walpole, M.J. &Goodwin, H.J. 2001. Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation, vol. 28, pp. 160-166. Wardell, M. & Moore, S. 2004. Collection, storage and application of visitor use data in protected areas: Guiding principles and case studies, Gold Coast, Queensland: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre. Watson, A.E., Cole, D.N., Turner, D.L. & Reynolds, P.S. 2000. Wilderness recreation use estimation: a handbook of methods. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-56, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Weiler, B. & Ham, S.H. 2001. Tour guides and interpretation in ecotourism. In: D. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of ecotourism (pp. 549-563). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. Wellings, P. 2007. Joint management: aboriginal involvement in tourism in the Kakadu World Heritage Area. In R. Bushell and P.F.J. Eagles (Eds.), Tourism and protected areas: Benefits beyond boundaries (pp. 89-100). Cambridge, MA: CABI. Wynne C., Berthon, P., Pitt, L.,. Ewing, M. & Napoli, L. 2001.The impact of the Internet on the distribution value chain. The case of south African tourism industry. International Marketing Review, vol. 18, issue 4, pp. 420-431. Vlachos, C.G., Bakaloudis, D.E. & Holloway, G.J. 1999. Population trends of black vulture Aegypius monachus in Dadia Forest, NE Greece following the establishment of a feeding station. Bird Conservation International, vol. 9, pp. 113–118. Zeppel, H. 2006. Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable development and management. Wallingford, UK: CABI. WEBSITES Evros Delta, www.evros–delta.gr (accessed 01/31/2013) Evros Prefecture, www.nomevrou.gr/ecportal.asp?id=229... (accessed December 7, 2011) Hellenic Ministry of Rural Development and food, www.minagric.gr/.../BAC_Agrotourism_Synopsis...(accessed December 12, 2011)

119
